4.11 F4U Performance

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by Shaker

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html

I am taking my info from the above link.

"It could outfight, outclimb and (if need be) outrun any prop driven enemy."

That link and statements are worth of nothing. Thats a product of a U.S. fansite, supported by bend oppinions of fighter pilots (who understandibly never would state "hey, our planes were all porked, but still we won!"). And you beliefe in it. Sorry to sound rude, but simply its that way.

As for the numbers: We have neighter the prototype, nor the F4U-4 in game.

"...any prop driven enemy.." - He forgot to add "...,that was available at that time." - wich in fact was (on fighters) an Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-61 and A6M-3 and a little bit later an A6M-5, with almost the same performance as the A6M-3.

Now to the numbers in game. With the weakest of the Corsair versions - the F4U-1 - you can outrun a Zero anytime at any alt level, with a minimum advantage of 40km/h at 2000m and 6000m.
From 350km/h climb speed upward you can run away from any Zero as well.
Naturally you cannot turn with it below 440km/h neigher can you do slow-climbing below 350km/h.

To my eyes this gives quite a few possibilies to fight successfull against Zeros. Ki-61 may be a bit more difficult, but its almost the same there in all points.

Furthermore, the F4U series has all become sligthly more maneuverable.
To have said that, I don't see your problem, but maybe only in the way you use to fly.

The stock F4U doesn't even meet these standards and now it appears to be worse.

Half true progaganda is no standard. "It could outfight everything." - Outfight? What is this? At least no value, that we can work with.

[sawyer692]

[QUOTE=EJGr.Ost_Caspar;379066]As for the numbers: We have neighter the prototype, nor the F4U-4 in game.

"...any prop driven enemy.." - He forgot to add "...,that was available at that time." - wich in fact was (on fighters) an Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-61 and A6M-3 and a little bit later an A6M-5, with almost the same performance as the A6M-3.

Now to the numbers in game. With the weakest of the Corsair versions - the F4U-1 - you can outrun a Zero anytime at any alt level, with a minimum advantage of 40km/h at 2000m and 6000m.
From 350km/h climb speed upward you can run away from any Zero as well.
Naturally you cannot turn with it below 440km/h neigher can you do slow-climbing below 350km/h.

To my eyes this gives quite a few possibilies to fight successfull against Zeros. Ki-61 may be a bit more difficult, but its almost the same there in all points.

Furthermore, the F4U series has all become sligthly more maneuverable.
To have said that, I don't see your problem, but maybe only in the way you use to fly.
[QUOTE]


I look forward to testing this today against a breather in a Zero. It may take some time though as we'll be CTD every 5 minutes and overheating on takeoff. I fly the F4U almost exclusivley so I have a pretty good idea what to compare it to.

[EAF331 Starfire]

Originally Posted by Shaker

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html

I am taking my info from the above link.

"It could outfight, outclimb and (if need be) outrun any prop driven enemy."

"The XF4U-1 first went aloft on May 1, 1940 and five months later flew the 45 miles (73 km) between Stratford and Hartford, Connecticut at a speed of 405 miles per hour (651.8 kph), becoming the first production aircraft to exceed 400 mph in level flight. The US Navy was very pleased with the performance of the Corsair and, in June 1941, ordered 584 copies. Over the next 11 years that figure would grow to over 12,500 F4Us. "

The stock F4U doesn't even meet these standards and now it appears to be worse.

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

That link and statements are worth of nothing. Thats a product of a U.S. fansite, supported by bend oppinions of fighter pilots (who understandibly never would state "hey, our planes were all porked, but still we won!"). And you beliefe in it. Sorry to sound rude, but simply its that way.

As for the numbers: We have neighter the prototype, nor the F4U-4 in game.

"...any prop driven enemy.." - He forgot to add "...,that was available at that time." - wich in fact was (on fighters) an Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-61 and A6M-3 and a little bit later an A6M-5, with almost the same performance as the A6M-3.

Now to the numbers in game. With the weakest of the Corsair versions - the F4U-1 - you can outrun a Zero anytime at any alt level, with a minimum advantage of 40km/h at 2000m and 6000m.
From 350km/h climb speed upward you can run away from any Zero as well.
Naturally you cannot turn with it below 440km/h neigher can you do slow-climbing below 350km/h.

To my eyes this gives quite a few possibilies to fight successfull against Zeros. Ki-61 may be a bit more difficult, but its almost the same there in all points.

Furthermore, the F4U series has all become sligthly more maneuverable.
To have said that, I don't see your problem, but maybe only in the way you use to fly.



Half true progaganda is no standard. "It could outfight everything." - Outfight? What is this? At least no value, that we can work with.

I tend to agree with EJGr.Ost_Caspar.

Looking at grafs and numbers for different a/c from WWII
like http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ and http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

and reading several books which analysed the war as a whole it was not the performance of the individual a/c that won the war.

It all came down to resources, production and strategy. In essence it was numbers!

We really need a feature that can balance the servers more historical. ETO 1944: RAF+USAF vs Luftwaffe = 4:1
I recommend reading "Brute Force" by John Ellis. Unfortunately it can only be found second hand but it is a revalation.

I have made a link to the aircraft production numbers for the war














Looking at the ratios make me laugh at most so called WWII documentaries. Almost all of them are filled with propaganda.
Don't get me wrong. I am glad that the Allies won (or my country would not exist), but that kind of propaganda are bad if we need to learn from history. It is against what the Allies (-USSR) fought for. It is bad for sims.

[Jumoschwanz]

I tested the F4u on the Pacific Map and I found a 80km/hr advantage over the A6m5 at sea level at noon, and a 60km/hr advantage at 5000 meters altitude.
Also as usual the Corsair and most other allied aircraft are going to have an advantage in maneuverability at high speed.
No reason to get shot down by a zero unless you screw up or are bounced.

If you are having overheating issues then you simply do not know how to manage the engine. With the radiator open at 85% prop pitch I was able to run Corsairs on WEP for very long periods of time, longer than many other aircraft before I had overheating issues.

The Corsair will be king of the Pacific on 1943 maps. On 1944 maps the J2m3 and the Ki-84 will give it trouble, but that is what the late Japanese aircraft were built for, to compete with the late U.S. fighters and bombers.

I know a few specialists who are real terrors in the Corsair in slow turning dogfights no matter what they are up against, if the Corsair turns even better now then it is going to be interesting going up against them...

I would fly the Corsair like the FW190A, keep it fast and try to have an advantage of speed and/or surprise when you attack. Flying that way with a squad on coms should make you as successful as anyone on any server.

If you are flying on the deck in furballs on arcade settings without using historical tactics then there is no discussion even worth having....

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

I tested the F4u on the Pacific Map and I found a 80km/hr advantage over the A6m5 at sea level at noon, and a 60km/hr advantage at 5000 meters altitude.

Pacific Map.. Not sure which map the IL-2Compare 4.11 data is realitve to, but it got simular values, i.e.

@ SL
567 kph F4u-1A
465 kph A6M5a
--------------------
102 kph

@ 5,000m
630 kph F4u-1A
542 kph A6M5a
--------------------
88 kph

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

Also as usual the Corsair and most other allied aircraft are going to have an advantage in maneuverability at high speed.

Sadly IL-2Comapre does NOT show roll rates, but at 1,000m the ZERO out flat turns the F4u at speeds below 430kph, Above that speed the F4U turns better, which would agree with your statment.

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

If you are flying on the deck in furballs on arcade settings without using historical tactics then there is no discussion even worth having....

Agreed

[Snake]

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

If you are flying on the deck in furballs on arcade settings without using historical tactics then there is no discussion even worth having....

HA HA!!! +10!! So well said!

[Whacker]

Hi friends, I know this is a bit of a "hairy" thread, but would like to throw my own 2 cents in here.

First off, I love the 4.11 patch and can't wait for Modact and HSFX to start supporting it. And a big thank you to Team D for continuing to to support their game, I bought every version and expansion at release and it's money well spent.

On topic, I think there is something slightly wonky about the F4U-1x's that bears investigation. I've been monkeying around with carrier takeoffs, both on the shorter CVEs and the bigger Essex CV's, and it's been a nightmare. I can't take off on the CVE to save my life, stationary or moving, ordinance or none. Fiddled with the missions a bit using the FMB and still no luck. I tried just about every suggestion in this thread that I could find but no joy.

I saw someone's comment about a book mentioning that "All US naval aircraft could take off fully loaded from a stationary aircraft carrier", so I started doing a bit of digging myself. I found this information here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html which appears to reference a number of official publishings from the manufacturers and military testing. It just says the -1 version and not which subvariant. Regardless, the data on take-off distances vs. fuel load is interesting. "Overload" which appears to be full fuel t/o dist with no wind is 660ish ft, 100 over the length of the Casablanca class CVE's in game. 15 kt headwind is pushing it, 25 kt is faster than the CVEs can go but adding headwind to make up for it can be done. I still couldn't take off with a combined 25 kt Wind Over Deck with full fuel as indicated by that source. With a 310ish ft t/o distance the F4U should pretty much leap off the deck, like we see in some of the Youtube videos posted.

As a few others point out, there are some interim solutions that can put a bandaid on this in the mean time, but I would submit to TD that this does bear some investigation.

[BadAim]

I haven't read all of the rest of this thread so I'm not sure what's going on with it, but I can say that I've never read anything about the F4U being used operationally from a CVE, and as far as I know it took the Brits to figure out how to fly the damn thing from a fleet carrier. I just don't see why anyone would expect the F4U to be useful from a CVE in IL2 if it wasn't used that way during the war. If I'm wrong I don't mind being corrected by someone who actually knows, as I'm no expert on the Pacific theater and I've only been studying it in any depth in the last couple of years.

Past any actual evidence, I'd expect a plane the size and wing loading (not to mention the nassty stall characteristics) of the Corsair to have trouble on anything the size of a CVE. That of course that doesn't mean anything.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by BadAim

I haven't read all of the rest of this thread so I'm not sure what's going on with it, but I can say that I've never read anything about the F4U being used operationally from a CVE, and as far as I know it took the Brits to figure out how to fly the damn thing from a fleet carrier. I just don't see why anyone would expect the F4U to be useful from a CVE in IL2 if it wasn't used that way during the war. If I'm wrong I don't mind being corrected by someone who actually knows, as I'm no expert on the Pacific theater and I've only been studying it in any depth in the last couple of years.

Past any actual evidence, I'd expect a plane the size and wing loading (not to mention the nassty stall characteristics) of the Corsair to have trouble on anything the size of a CVE. That of course that doesn't mean anything.

Interesting discussion we had on another thread (or maybe forum) about Corsair use on CVE's. There were some that did have Corsair use. The RN used Corsairs from both full sized and escort class carriers which I found fascinating. The CVE use was somewhat limited and I believe catapult launches were a requirement for full fuel/armament loads.

I can't find the references right now... but there are a couple of pictures we found in a Squadron Signal Corsair book and elsewhere on the net.

[BadAim]

It seems that the Brits are the pioneers as far as the Corsair is concerned. I certainly don't find it surprising that even they found the CVE troublesome. The F4U is a handful by any estimation, it seems to me that a lot of people are expecting these planes to be much easier to fly in the sim than they were in real life, but then again this is only my opinion and I could be wrong.